Peace in our time
Anti-war protestors ignore historic parallels

Nearly 65 years ago, after handing over the Czech Sudetanland to Nazi Germany, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared in front of a cheering crowd that they had achieved “peace in our time.”

As our history books tell us, there was no peace in his time. Chamberlain sacrificed an entire expanse of people for a false cheer, a false hope, and a false peace. Unwilling to confront a murderous tyrant when the European democracies had the advantage, Chamberlain saw passage to the most destructive period in the history of mankind where forty million innocent people lost their lives.

Without American intervention with her vast resources and manpower, a free Europe would have fallen and an entire people would have vanished in column of smoke. In a war that America did not start, but one they saw finished, nearly a quarter of a million American soldiers were lost. Never again did they see the faces of their wives, mothers, or friends.

It has been a long time since Santayana’s maxim about forgetting and repeating history could be said without irony or cliché. But with great sadness, two generations have passed and mankind is back on the same path.

Painted in large red letters over a yellow background, surrounded by thousands of his fellow compatriots, a London peace protestor holds a sign emblazoning the words “Peace in Our Time.” No other picture -- not even photos of Saddam’s gassed victims -- can symbolize the historical ignorance, moral bankruptcy, intellectual absurdity, and hypocritical nature of these peace protesters.

In San Francisco one hundred thousand people marched against the upcoming war. The crowded the streets and sidewalks for blocks and blocks. However, they amount to only half the number of Kurds Saddam has killed.

Even if the protests had swelled to half a million marchers, there would still be fewer than the number of lives Saddam has extinguished.

Throughout the world -- London, Berlin, Paris, New York, San Francisco, Seoul, and countless other cities, many have urged the abandonment of hostilities for the continuation of peace.

To them I ask what peace?

Is peace the continuing enslavement of the people of Iraq?
Is peace the further development of weapons solely designed for the annihilation of entire populations?
Is peace worth one more woman raped for Saddam’s pleasure, one more mother separated from her child, one more father dragged away, never to be seen again, in the dark of night?

The protestors cry for peace, but Saddam’s war has never ended. Deluded by their desire for moral superiority and their rejection of salient fact, today’s peace protestors have failed to comprehend that peace will not occur until Saddam’s murderous regime falls.

The greatest mistake of Chamberlain and his intellectual kin was the failure to articulate a counter policy to appeasement in the wake of a serious threat to world peace. The heirs of Chamberlain--today’s peace protestors-- have continued this dangerous course of action and have yet to express any methods to deal with repressive regimes, or such threats as Al-Queda.

The peace movement of today has nothing to do with peace. It is a collection of angry and incoherent agendas which serve as a pretext to condemn America, Israel, and capitalism. If one were to scan the sea of signs in San Francisco, hardly a sign could be found denouncing Saddam, while none offered a plausible alternative to war.

Peace protestors supposedly champion equal rights for woman and minorities, free speech, human rights, democracy, and international law. In reality, they practice none of it. For 30 years Saddam has murdered millions and committed untold atrocities, but there was no march for his victims. He has imprisoned, tortured, or executed anyone who possessed the courage to speak up against his actions, but there were no words spoken. Countless resolutions have passed by the United Nations Security Council yet the same number have been ignored. Instead of denouncing of Saddam for his treachery and flagrant violations of international law, the peace movement is silent.

Disarmament is a simple process in which Ukraine, South Africa, and Kazakhstan have successfully completed. These countries invited inspectors and voluntarily rid themselves of their weapons of mass destruction in an open and transparent fashion, without playing Saddam’s games and scavenger hunts. For 12 years the world has patiently waited, yet Saddam has not disarmed. The peace movement has failed to accept this fact, let alone offer any proposal to end Saddam’s pursuit of genocidal weapons.

While conveniently ignoring Saddam’s disregard for UN authority, the peace movement argues the United States and her allies cannot attack Saddam’s Iraq without Security Council approval. They argue that the United Nations, a body composed of many un-elected dictators and totalitarian governments, has the moral authority to govern the world. Ignorant of history, the peace movement has failed to realize the United Nations was a product of the post-WW II era whose purpose was to provide an arena of discussion for nation states, not a creation of world government. To further understand the hypocrisy that is the United Nations, one has only to look at the Human rights council which is chaired by Libya, and has such members as China, Cuba, and Iran. Communist China, whose record of murder and repression surpasses that of any country, has the power to veto any and all resolutions. Can any moral person let the fate of an entire people in the hands of the United Nations?

One of the signature critiques that peace activists promote is the charge of Unilateralism, which in-and-of itself is not a cause for concern. By holding Multilateralism as the preeminent issue, the anti-war critics essentially argue “it is better to do the wrong thing together, than the right thing alone.” Fortunately, this construct of twisted logic cannot be applied to the current state of the world. The United States has a broader multilateral (and democratic) coalition supporting the liberation of Iraq than those who oppose. In terms of the number of states, GDP, population, and military expenditures; European countries that back America’s position overwhelmingly dwarf those who are in support of the status quo. Currently eighteen European counties including England, Spain, and Italy support the liberation of Iraq while France, Germany, and Belgium oppose.

If war is to occur, it will not be for reasons of oil as the protestors have trumpeted. Protestors yell “no blood for oil” but they fail to realize oil can be purchased from Saddam without the cost in lives and money inherent in prosecuting a war. Had we the desire for all of Iraq’s oil contracts, sanctions would be lifted and (at Saddam’s suggestion) America would have secured those contracts. Peace Protestors scream false truths concerning America and oil but fall silent when those who oppose Iraq’s freedom--France, Germany, and Russia- have purchased Saddam’s contracts.

The peace protesters have lost touch with reality and have succumbed to perilous delusions. As Saddam’s useful idiots, the peace movement is his mouthpiece of lies and shield against justice. Their in no “peace in our time.” Peace cannot occur while countries are ruled by tyrants and citizens of free nations sit idly by. If war occurs, many innocent people will lose their lives. However, the doing nothing is not an option. War is an evil thing, but it is not evilist of things. The greater evil is to allow Saddam’s reign to continue, sentencing another generation to his torment while allowing him the means and ability to project his wrath to other nations.